United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60380

Summary Calendar

Bank of Louisiana, 

Petitioner,

versus

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FDIC-12-489(b), FDIC-12-479(k)

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Bank of Louisiana petitions for review of a decision and order 

issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Board, which 

concluded that the Bank violated various banking laws and regulations. The 

Bank argues that the Administrative Law Judge that issued the order was 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60380 Document: 00515686737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2020
No. 20-60380

2

never properly appointed by the FDIC Board of Directors. But the Board 

passed a resolution doing just that in July 2018. To the extent the Bank argues 

that this resolution was somehow inadequate, that argument is forfeited for 

lack of adequate briefing. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); United States v. 

Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446–47 (5th Cir. 2010) (“It is not enough to merely 

mention or allude to a legal theory.”); L & A Contracting Co. v. S. Concrete 

Servs., 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[Appellant] cites no authority in its 

one-page argument . . . however, and we consider the challenge abandoned 

for being inadequately briefed.”). 

The Bank also argues that the order is moot because subsequent bank 

examinations suggest the Bank remedied its violations. The order imposes a 

civil money penalty and includes a cease-and-desist requirement. The money 

penalty keeps the controversy alive, even if the Bank has come into 

compliance. See, e.g., Reich v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 

102 F.3d 1200, 1202 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[C]laims for money do not become 

moot as a result of the defendants’ acts following the occurrence giving rise 

to the claims”); Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd., 

890 F.2d 690, 696 (4th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he [money] penalty factor keeps the 

controversy alive between plaintiffs and defendants in a citizen suit, even 

though the defendant has come into compliance”). Nor does a 

discontinuation of illegal practices render an FDIC cease-and-desist order 

moot. See First Nat’l Bank v. Comptroller, 697 F.2d 674, 683 (5th Cir. 1983); 

Bank of Dixie v. FDIC, 766 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1985). 

Alternatively, the Bank argues that it erroneously filed its petition for 

review with this court and asks us to transfer the case to the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. We have twice rejected 

this argument. See Bank of Louisiana v. FDIC, 807 F. App’x 360, 362 (5th 

Cir. 2020) (“Because district courts lack jurisdiction to review FDIC 

enforcement orders, and because 28 U.S.C. § 1631 permits transfer only to a 

Case: 20-60380 Document: 00515686737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2020
No. 20-60380

3

transferee court that would have jurisdiction to hear the case, we deny the 

Bank’s motion to transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Louisiana.”); Bank of Louisiana v. FDIC, 919 F.3d 916, 924 (5th 

Cir. 2019) (“The Bank wisely concedes that the section 1818 scheme displays 

Congress’ intent to preclude district court jurisdiction over claims against 

the FDIC arising out of enforcement proceedings. Our precedent virtually 

compels that concession.”). 

We deny both the Bank’s petition for review and request to transfer 

the case. 

Case: 20-60380 Document: 00515686737 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2020